ADDED: I almost feel sorry for Obama and the Democrats for their misfortune that this is the issue that has come to the fore at this time.

At least one Republican, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seized on the confusion. “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade,” Palin wrote on Facebook....

Democratic aides say that, at the very least, the president has again knocked his party's candidates off local messages and forced them to talk about a national issue that doesn't appear likely to play well with important swing voters.

These officials planned to spend this weekend talking about Social Security’s 75th anniversary....

"The main reaction is 'Why? Why now?’" said one House Democratic leadership aide. "It's just another day off message. There have been a lot of days off message.

The chief of staff to one politically vulnerable House Democrat said it "probably alienates a lot of independent voters" and "it's not a good issue to be talking about right now."

He said he suspects "there are a lot of (Democrats) who are spooked in tough districts today" and "a lot of Republicans licking their chops right now."

Almost. The Democrats would love to do the same thing to the Republicans. They wouldn't hesitate to exploit something that captures the public's attention and provides leverage for the political arguments they like to make. Remember the Mark Foley incident in 2006.

It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans.

Wow! Quit while you're behind.

FLS, agree though I'd have said "don't start sermonizing on why settlers building in Hebron can be a bridge to better understanding between Muslim and Jew"

No, we're not. We're saddened that the Democrat Party and the President have come out so forcefully in support of a cult that has as its central tenet the murder of "infidels" who refuse to submit to its teachings.

Our Constitution does not support its own destruction. Islamic cultists want to burn the Constitution. We're not going to let them.

And if you're a Democrat, you'd better fucking get on the right side of the aisle on this topic or you're ineligible to hold public office.

Whoever is in charge gets to be in the defensive position to questions like this.

But President Obama could have artfully dodged this bullet by outlining the freedoms of the first and fifth amendments, pointing out that Muslims have far more freedom in America than in the Muslim world, saying what George Bush said that Islam is not the enemy but al Qaeda and radical terrorism is the enemy...

then suggesting this project would be best located in a different location but saying that was for the promoters to figure out with local officials.

But Obama blew it.

And I do not relish he blew it. I would prefer the President say the right thing.

Obama knows exactly what's going on. From what I've seen of the man, I suspect that his knee-jerk reaction is one of contrarianism. Obama knows that the American people are against this idea but rather than ascribing legitimate motives to the populace, he believes we're all a bunch of raghead-hating rubes. So, he comes out for what he sees as the highest of moral highgrounds.

It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project.

Too fucking late for that, he already passed judgment on it at his little Ramadan get-together. If he wanted to stay out of it, he should have stayed out of it. Now he needs to take a stand: For it or against it?

Mark Zandi said it this morning - "Uncertainty". The same point was raised throughout "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes in regard to the FDR administration. When you sow so much uncertainty, it leads to nothing but economic stagnation. Your average small business owner doesn't know what this team is going to do next. So he does nothing. No hiring, no capital expenditures. Nothing.

I don't like how Muslim institutions act in this country. It's all about bullying the rest of us to do what they want, and to give them respect they have not earned. It is not about trying to find a place within American culture, but of trying to impose their will on the rest of us without any consideration of our history, traditions, or rights.

Respect for civil rights like free speech go out the window when they are used to criticize anything Islamic.

So no, I don't think this mosque is OK, and I don't think our President should be saying it's OK. Even if it is legal, he should at most be silent about it. The courts are the proper venue for the unpleasant but necessary description of legal but wrong.

The fact that the President said anything about this creates a context where he is supporting this mosque. If he didn't want to give that impression, why say anything? The courts would have done the work for him.

1) Obama could have stayed out of it by sticking with his "it's a local matter" schtick. It wouldn't have cost him a thing.

2) Even if you assume that he REALLY WAS just talking about whether they have the "RIGHT" to build the mosque, it's insulting to everyone who ALREADY KNEW that and opposed it based on the grounds that they SHOULDN'T do it. We don't need to be lectured about the Constitution by a guy who thinks he knows the Constitution better than the Supreme Court and yet still managed to find the unwritten right to force people to enter into private contracts against their will somewhere in there.

3) No one ACTUALLY believes that's what he was doing. He was pandering to his Muslim audience, and had NO IDEA how it would play across the country. Remember this is the guy who thought that people valued their individual freedoms because they were "bitter clingers."

4) He doesn't care how it impacts other Democrats. Other Democrats are not BARACK OBAMA. BARACK OBAMA does what is best for BARACK OBAMA. Other Democrats should know that they exist only to further the goals of BARACK OBAMA, and if they do not then they are of no further use to BARACK OBAMA. BARACK OBAMA.

1. He (Obama) has defended the constitution.2. How neatly "..on every local project" now morphed into an all or none blither. He doesn't pass judgment on everyone...just ones that perhaps don't have a constitutional question sitting on the like a bullseye.3. Who writes these poll questions with a bunch of cheap shot questions. Where is the one that says "Obama held fast to the contitution and if he supports the building or doesn't is second behind his oath of office".

What is everybody acting surprised for? The Obama method has a simple north star: whatever will destroy American institutions such as family, church, military, and private property not under government control, that is his target. NOTHING ELSE interests him. What else did we think the first Kenyan-American Marxist President would do? He ain't no George Washington.

I agree with a number of the previous posters. I do think that the President was pandering to Muslims, and got caught by the rest of the country. And, I think that he has a tin ear when it comes to this sort of thing, and that is a result of his spending much of his life in a politically correct liberal echo chamber - in academia and later in the tony liberal regions of Chicago.

What it shows is that he really is out of touch with reality. Of course, Presidents invariably become that, but this is one President who appears to have been out of touch with America throughout his entire life.

And this is one reason that I think that he is going to be a one term President. Bill Clinton was able to recover from his first two years because he is just the opposite type of politician - sensitive to the political winds (all that polling helped too, but you have to be willing to listen to the pollsters - Clinton was, Obama isn't willing to do so).

In the end, he is going to lose, because he just isn't one of us. Not even close, and every time he makes a bone-headed move like this, it shows this.

WV: poppi - wasn't that close to the name they gave GHWB (41)? I was thinking about him above with the grocery scanners, when I was talking about being out of touch with reality.

that's why you won't ever have to take the oath of office and why the United States/New York is superior to Saudi Arabia/Mecca.

What possible difference does it make what a theocracy does compared to a democratic republic? Or is that you aspire to have the United States adopt a religion and practice the exclusion you seem to hold up in comparison? What is it?

Obama inadvertently forced some honesty into the pro-Mosque side of the debate. Mayor Bloomberg and the media lackeys have been lying about the opposition with impunity, ignoring the difference between "they should not" and "they should not be allowed to."

Bruce Hayden said..."... but this is one President who appears to have been out of touch with America throughout his entire life...."

Yes yes Bruce. With 365 electoral votes he sure missed the mark on support didn't he Bruce. Yup. Completely out of touch and for his entire life too...nice observation. You are very smart Bruce....but a question...can you still poop with your head up your ass?

@jim, 2) Even if you assume that he REALLY WAS just talking about whether they have the "RIGHT" to build the mosque, it's insulting to everyone who ALREADY KNEW that and opposed it based on the grounds that they SHOULDN'T do it.--------------

Exactly. That is why it was weird and silly when Althouse took that lap dance in another post about how she got Obama's famous words right and everyone else got it wrong.

Good for Palin. Twitter is good in one respect, it's very terse. And in only a few words she basically evisceratedObama's waffiling position, undercut the demagogic talkng points and even got in a personal dig at Obama for suggesting he is above such matters. Because Obama, has tried having it both ways on this by both suggesting and denying that he is for this project. Because the libs in particular have been demagoging this as if those who are for this are against religious freedom. The question has always been We all know you have the right to do it, but should they?And the answer is, if you want to build bridges, then it's a dumb move. Ritmo and Garage can work themselves into a rabid state about protecting religious freedoms, or as we like to refer to it beating the strawman to death. She even getsin a dig at Obama's earlier statement that questions of abortion were above his pay grade. (Think people forgot that, did you?). For all her lack of sophistication it's funny how she could instantly see how polarizing this issue could be. And for all of Obama's smarts you'd think he wouldn't both waffle about it but also put out a position that throws all those who thought that supporting the mosque was the correct position for dems/libs to take under the bus.

At least one Republican, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seized on the confusion.

I am not sure if you could call it "seizing on the confusion", since I don't think that that many Americans are confused, and the only real confusion in the White House is the question of why pandering to the people who made the big hole there would not play well with the American People.

One thing that I do think is amazing is how well this woman, whom everyone left of center and anyone still listening or reading the MSM has portrayed as an ignorant rural hick, is consistently able to hit the political nail on the head with her statements. She did it with her "death panels", and, guess what? Rationing that can be, and likely will be, used for just that, is implicitly in the health care "reform" that recently was passed into law, if it is not, in fact, repealed.

I cannot think of another politician, on either side, who is as good at this as she is. I think that anyone who dismisses her is missing, intentionally or not, the rise of one of the most formidable politicians we have seen.

Finally, I find it interesting that the Democrats lower down on the food chain are complaining that this has knocked them off their local message (as if they could distance themselves from the votes that they made at his behest). This is just more evidence that these Democrats are not worried about truth or reality, but rather, winning, at any costs.

@Jim and pm317, the three of us are in agreement -- why on earth did Obama bring the subject up at all? If there was supposed to be an upside, then I don't see what it was.

But even so, if he had stuck with the position that he supports the mosque -- which any idiot but a White House speech writer had to see as being the way his original remarks would be taken -- it would have been defensible. It's his attempt to do a walk-back that makes him look at best like a sleazy lawyer and at worst like a pandering doofus.

There are times when the Presidential thing to do is to do nothing. He had two opportunities to keep his mouth shut, and he blew both of them.

"Can someone please tell ex-Gov Palin that one does not engage in serious political discussion ON FACEBOOK"

Nope. Elitist. I work for a lovely politician who would have little way to get coverage or interact with a widely-dispersed district were it not for Facebook. It's a great platform for those who don't get much visibility other ways. And it would not be such today were it not for Palin's groundbreaking use of the medium.

If people's business picks up to the point that everybody's working a lot of OT, they'll hire somebody, probably a temp, at first. I don't see anybody's business picking up that much.

There does appear to be a lot more OT right now with a lot of businesses. Sure, there is always some of that going on in recessions, but it appears to be more common this time to pay more and more OT instead of hiring additional workers.

Now, from a Keynesian point of view, there shouldn't be that much difference between paying extra workers or paying the same workers for more work. The money being paid them should still result in spending that will help us out of this recession - except that assumes that workers are not rationally worried about the future and would thus tend to spend whatever they made, instead of saving more of it, as we are seeing.

@HD, the question of how many electoral votes he won is orthogonal to the question of whether Obama relates well to the average American.

The question for you is whether, if the election of 2008 was rerun today, would Obama carry any states except New York, Illinois, two or three states in New England, and the three states that make up the Left Coast? Now that we've all had a real chance to look him over, see how inarticulate he is without his teleprompter, witness his contempt towards the other party (and even towards people in his own party are to his right), and his lack of leadership skills, I think he'd do a lot worse today than he did in November 2008.

If all Muslims are evil, and are working towards our destruction because of Islam's intrinsic doctrines, we have to expel all Muslims from this country ASAP.

I don't think that very many here think that all Muslims are anywhere close to evil. But that is a very different thing from not wanting a Mosque built right next to the hole in the ground created through Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Part of the problem is that this portrays the message that militant Islamic terrorists are able to attack us with impunity, and then build a mosque right next to their greatest work to celebrate their victory over us because our Constitution so weakens us that we cannot prevent this glorification of Allah at that location.

@c3, are you kidding me? Palin is a one-woman mega media outlet through Facebook. She has the courage (and no dog in the fight yet) to ask all the tough and awkward questions that others don't want to ask and say things to what is his face that others won't. Facebook exactly the right kind of vehicle for that.

Politico reports [and thanks to John Hinderaker at Powerline for pointing this out] that Obama is now seeking “to defuse the controversy” by explaining that he was merely talking about the mosque proponents’ legal right to build at the World Trade Center site. “I was not commenting and I will not comment,” he said, “on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there” (emphasis added).

Good luck with that one. Compounding insult with cynicism and cowardice is probably not a winning strategy.

Just when you think the President and his political advisors are going to get a hold of themselves and stop fucking up in time for things to die down before the Midterms, they just keep digging deeper.

Obviously the President is woefully incompetent, but his advisors are just terrible. These people are not idiots.

Meade said... "It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project."

But the Feisal Abdul Rauf Barack Obama Michael Bloomberg Ground Zero mosque and Islamic center local project isn't just any local project, is it?

8/15/10 12:29 PM

Yes. It is frustrating to be called a bigot, racist and anti Islamic for being against this project (here a little bit, but at other sites esepcially). And I am against the government formally opposing it, or burying the project in red tape (the Chicago way), or the government throwing out the welcome mat and expediting it through (which is what Blooberg is doing). I have no problems with mosques (there are two small ones near the WTC site and one in the Pentagon), I have a problem with this project.

They can build it. I can speak out against it. They should not build it.

Obviously the President is woefully incompetent, but his advisors are just terrible. These people are not idiots.

Something's not adding up here.

Karl Rove, no dummy, says in his book that he takes the blame for not fighting the "Bush Lied, People Died Meme." Now sure it's Dubya's "fault"...all Dubya had to do was say, "Turd Blossom, we cain't let folks git away with lying 'bout us like that, or sooner or later the Voters will come to believe it." I mean he took Rove's advice, but is was his decision.

So too Obama, but my point is that very smart people make awful decisions all the time. Just because Rahm is very smart doesn't mean that their decisions are going to be good, all the time.

President Obama using his position to convince BP to agree to a settlement fund to pay victims of one of the worst environmental disasters, caused by BP = "Government shakedown," "coercion," slush fund," "un-American."

President Obama using his position to convince NYC business venture to stop their proposed project = ?

O is dumb as a box of rocks and I cannot see why anyone ever thought differently.

Palin's use of Facebook is nothing less than brilliant. The press would cover her only if they got to spin things their way, so she posts on Facebook. She says exactly what she wants to say without the press filtering anything. And we can all read it.

(Well, except at work, for me. They blocked FB a couple of days ago. So far, Althouse is not blocked, thank goodness.)

President Obama using his position to convince BP to agree to a settlement fund to pay victims of one of the worst environmental disasters, caused by BP = "Government shakedown," "coercion," slush fund," "un-American."

President Obama using his position to convince NYC business venture to stop their proposed project = ?

You've got a few flaws in that analogy. Let me fix it for you:

"President Obama using his position to convince NYC business venture to stop their proposed project by threatening DOJ prosecutions and vowing to keep the boot of government on their neck until they submit = ?"

(To answer the reality-congrunet version: "?" = "the same sort of extortion he used against BP")

Were you stupid enough to think that BP set up that slush fund just because Obama voiced a disapproving opinion?

Or are you stupid enough to think that we thought that BP set up that slush fund just because Obama voiced a disapproving opinion?

Or are you stupid enough to think no one would notice the duplicitous premise you built your "thought experiment" on?

:yawn:

Demanding that people talk about these sorts of rigged fantasy scenarios because reality won't support your position is a boring shtick.

Today's NYT makes the purpose of Obama's reboot more clear. A full- on love piece about Obama "strongly backing" the Al-Qaeda Victory Mosque at Ground Zero. No matter what he does from now on, all the pathologically anti-American loons who financially support shitbirds like Obama will have that as succor.

Kinda the inverse of when Sec State Hillary Clinton made her first big trip to China.Turned out the purpose was to declare that Tibetan human rights were no longer a priority. How many thousands of tons of "Free Tibet" t-shirts and bumper stickers, accumulated over decades by Lefties of every flavor, did Hill the Liberal icon shit on that day?

These people are a menace, but they are also hilarious in their failures.

It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project.

He's the President of the United States. He's busy passing judgment on high-level matters like the racial sensitivity of the Cambridge Police Department, where Lebron James should play ball next season, who's going to be the biggest upset out of the East Regional (he called Cornell's first round victory - nice job, but why was he hoping for the young black men of Temple to fail?), the racial sensitivity of Arizona state law enforcement, and where we should go on vacation (Old and Busted: Vegas; New Hotness: The Gulf Coast. Asheville and Chicago are good, too. Or, money permitting, the Spanish Riviera or Martha's Vineyard.)

"Democratic aides say that, at the very least, the president has again knocked his party's candidates off local messages and forced them to talk about a national issue that doesn't appear likely to play well with important swing voters."

As with intentionally roiling up the Skip Gates fiasco with his intentional 'gaffe' (he'd been prepped on the question), Obama is intentionally angling for the Congress to go Republican so he can continue the second half of his term a la Bill Clinton, aka, The Triangulator. Christ, he's smooth. One-termer, my Aunt Fannie

Barack Hussein Obama Is treading the same fine line that the British Empire trod in 1945-47. He is not going against the Islamic oil power coalition, no matter what that entails. For Great Britain that meant under handedly opposing a Jewish Zionist movement in the old Turkish province under their control that was attempting to create a UN recognized Nation of Israel.For Barack Hussein Obama that means the same exact thing, since it is always all about the sovereign Jews existing in Jerusalem as far as the Islamic Jihad Command is concerned. Their 9/11 sneak attack was done to punish the courageous USA's Presidents' pro-Israel decisions taken at critical moments in the Truman and the Nixon Administrations. Now we have a conniving King Barack I who like the British Empire is scared of not siding with Muslim world oil power. And whatever did happen to that British Empire anyway?

Why did he do it? Because HE CAN"T HELP HIMSELF. This guy is on internal navigation. No mid-course correction via the guiding stars of the popular societal sociocultural firmament. No, his course guidance and target destination was all installed at the factory by his lefty/socialist/Communist parents, "mentors" friends and those extreme leftists he has admitted in writing he chose to surround himself with in college. Educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia and a man who can recite the Muslim "Call to Prayer" in Arabic by heart and considers it one of the "sweetest sounds in the world," it's time to call this leftist Islamo-fascist duck for what he is..

Oh yeah! Because the clever and conniving evil that is Barbara Walters and Joy Behar might have done something really nasty, like asking her questions about how she intends to govern the country and expecting that she might know the answer!!!

The Lefties assume everyone is like them in hoping people they don't like will fail and doing everything they can to help it along. The Zero got in his current mess by his "I won" attitude.

As Rush put it, most people wanted his agenda, once it became known after the election, to fail because they could see what it would do to the country, but they wanted the country to succeed. If he had proposed some sensible ideas and listened to all opinions offered, he wouldn't be in the low 40s in the polls.

But he had to do it the Lefty way. And now we all take it on the chin.

HDHouse said...

Bruce Hayden said..."... but this is one President who appears to have been out of touch with America throughout his entire life...."

Yes yes Bruce. With 365 electoral votes he sure missed the mark on support didn't he Bruce.

The Zero lied through his teeth about who he was, what he was, and what he intended to do. He would not have gotten 365 electoral votes if he had been honest with people.

Joe, my job's going well but I have employers who seem to have had morals and concern for the well-being of their business and their employees for a long time. No political statement in that, just a personal one. It's a bad environment out there but I'm holding up just fine and there but for the grace of God go I.

I'll let economists pass judgment on Obama's handling of the economy. Personally, I think he should have gone harder on Wall Street but hindsight is always 20/20, right? Especially once we're out of it, which we aren't.

There's a difference between politics and policy. You guys have the go-ahead to bash him politically because the conditions are favorable to the opposition. I get that. Go hog wild with it. Just don't pretend that you can convince me it's a valid critique on the substance. I'm sure there are many substantive critiques you could make of Obama. I wish you would care to pose them. I'm not convinced any of them have been unlatched from your bias.

Politically, his approval ratings are better than Clinton's and Reagan's were at this point in their presidencies. For the time being, I'll let that stand as a testament to the ability of the American people to be reasonable, forgiving and assign blame where it actually lays.

"I won" I might further point is a hilarious, in retrospect, example of the hubris of this Administration.

It was uttered to Republicans, who had also "won" their elections, who were asking for input into the Adminstration's policies.

The Won denied them input, and so their support..and now the "Won" is at 41% Approval. I imagine The Won, would take the input NOW, don't you think?

Instead, The Won is heading for a One-Term Presidency.

Funny isn't it? It is to me, ESPECIALLY if Obama leads to a Christie/Palin-type Presidency and a Ryan-Like "Road Map" and the Repudiation of the last 40-pulus years of Keynesian Conventional Wisdom....

I'll be rolling on the floor, Ritmo...not so much. See ya in Novemeber.

Let's go back to his televised meetings with the opposition (I won't call them "the losers") in Maryland earlier. The only one who'd even begun to address spending in a serious way is Paul Ryan. You know this to be true.

For the most part, the GOP is obsessed with foreign aid or other piddly budget items that don't even begin to address spending. They were not fiscally serious on the one issue that mattered most to Obama (expanding health care coverage) and they will never touch the third rails of defense, social security or Medicare - which combine to make up more than 60% of the budget.

But my citing these details is not as fun or dramatic as posting tweets on Twitter, updating one's social network or waving a colonial era flag with a snake on it, so I fully expect you to ignore it. Even though it's all more substantive than anything the Republicans would ever dare to talk about, let alone do.

The building of the Mosque in lower Manhattan is not really about religion. At root it is about economic power and the ability to use that power to one's political advantage. There are many religions that could not afford to build such a massive monument on that expensive land. Very few, I imagine, would be willing to divert their resources to making that sort of investment when the money might be better used for the poor, for missionary work, for hospitals or other works of actual religions.

Here we plainly see the vast wealth of the Muslim world being marshaled to create an unmistakable emblem next to the spot of such sorrow. There is no other logical or moral reason to invest in a religious building on that spot.

Those who analyze this choice as a right of religion are missing the point. This spot is in controversy only because of economics and, as such, it can and should be regulated as an economic venture. If only the most wealthy and profligate religions can waste money on a project of this size in that market, then it is a zoning issue.

It is money that matters and the use of money in a community can reasonably be regulated. Only fools call this enterprise the exercise of freedom of religion.

First he tells Muslims that the Ground Zero Mosque is a critical issue in which we must defend Freedom of Religion, then he tells them it is a "local matter". Wonder if this kind of "weak horse" waffling has anything to do with his poll numbers in the "Muslim World"?

@ Deborah...I try not to fall for a head fake by a basketball player who when he plans to drive left, looks right. The current belt buckle to watch are warnings to shoot down the Israeli aircraft if they cross Iraq. If not then Barack can wait for a point of exhaustion of Israeli ammo supplies in defending Iran's ensuing land attack from Gaza, Lebanan, and Syria. At that point he calls for saving everyone provided that he is put in charge of the peace. The alternative would be a total Israeli victory without the USA's help. That would make Israel the Hegemon over the middle east, not the Obama Gang. Hmmm. Now the US military in Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan will be in place to thwart Israel's victory and save Iran while we merrily presume we are Israel's friend. Barack is only a friend of an Israeli Government ready to surrender its sovereignty...like issuing building permits in historic Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

Almost. I'm glad you clarified 'almost' sympathetic. Clarified. Like buttah. Mmmm, buttah. That reminds me of a buttery yellow portrait of a Roman/Egyptian boy who died young. No name, just "the boy with the golden laurel crown," one of the lesser know of the famed Faiyum portraits.

Com'on, have a peek. It's more fun than dissecting, analyzing, and parsing pointless speeches made my nearly irrelevant executives, important more for what is omitted than for what is stated overtly, and so must be presumed, and by presumed then interpreted. Almost like art. Almost.

This is no more a "local matter" than is nuclear proliferation. And it's even more sinister since we're doing it by Islamic proxy.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, there aren't enough Muslims living in lower Manhattan to fill a Winnebago, much less a massive, multi-story mosque. So, where exactly will the Muslim throngs be coming from?

During the past few weeks, scores of store-front mosques in and around New York have instructed their followers to populate the NYC streets, specifically tourist spots like Times Square: To give the impression of many, many Muslims who need a place to pray. Just check 42nd & Broadway, Herald Square, the main subway stations, even the Staten Island ferry, particularly nights and weekends.

Mark my words, their goal is nothing less than Mecca West. And they'll be coming from everywhere via their "Winnebago" caravans.

You are measuring "Right" from the perspective of is it good for the country? They measuring "right" by does it conform to our world view and did we "win?" By those measures they've been QUITE right."

Not really. I was talking about a politician and his advisors taking action that is detrimental to their party's image. Even in the examples you cite, they have taken action that has resulted in pissing off the majority of Americans.

I see what you're saying, but they have obviously failed to win the public's opinion in every single political endeavor. This failure is so epic that it makes me wonder what else is up.

Wait a minute! Isn't the same Politoco that sucks Obama cock while he types up the talking points, and the same Politico that Ann caught selling fuck tea propaganda apparel? I can't believe nobody caught this! How could we ever link to Politico after all this?

The lesson here is, never complain, never explain, and never let your spokesperson "clarify" your remarks.

He should have let his Friday evening comment stand, taken the expected heat, and then let it die. Now he's got me, who supported his principled stand, thinking that all he's done is whip up the backlash even more.

Agree or disagree with Obama's positions, you gotta admit, he isn't good at his job. (His legislative wins are all about the numbers, and they left him and his party weaker despite the accomplishments.)

You know what FLS - OBAMA brought up the subject at the Ramadan dinner. He didn't have to bring up something controversial. He did it to say, "hey, I am on YOUR side, not one of these intolerant people." Of course, it would be INTOLERANT to say, decide to build a new German embassy on the graveyard of Holocaust dead. Not all German people are bad and they ALL didn't cause the deaths of 6million Jews but it's in BAD taste. Yet we will never have to speak of that happening because the Germans would never think of doing something like that.

Obama WOULD give a sermon to the jews or Israeli's about Hebron. The man has no problem with giving people a sermon to Jews, allies of the United States, conservatives, "white people," or anyone he feels is not meeting his expectations. Muslims, fascist dictators and other miscreants are one of the little people he patronizes.

This whole situation was a provocation. There is a HUGE fucking mosque on the Upper East side and smaller ones all over. For them to build this center here...it's a provocation and nothing more. That was Greg Gutfeld's point. The same people expecting "tolerance" for this mosque and are insensitive to 9/11 victims, are the same ones telling Gutfeld he is insensitive to the "sensibilities" of Muslims by building a gay bar next to the Mosque. Fucking hypocrites and the average American sees the hypocrisy.

In keeping with the conversion of America, the current Miss "America", Rima Fakih, a Muslim from Dearborn, is represented by the Arabic lobby to win the upcoming Miss Universe pageant, despite the fact that Ms. Fakih finished fourth in the Miss Wayne County beauty contest.

Not to imply that she's a camel, but internationally renowned beauty expert, Mr. Donald Trump, has refused direct comment, possibly due to a conflict of interest regarding a financing arrangement between Trump Properties and a certain Arab syndicate.

This is NOT a constitutional issue. No one is preventing Muslims from worshipping. The tools on this thread would have you believe there aren't mosques or dozens of Muslim schools and community centers in NYC alone. The state and no one is preventing this. It just gives people who think they are "open minded" and "progressive" a soap box to prove their bonafides.

Dollars to donuts if some Jewish center was being built next to the memorial for some Palestinian group Obama and the rest would be shouting "shame" and say "they are insensitive and intolerant!"

They can build their Mosque, it's just in bad taste and provocative to build it where they are and they knew it. They were so public about it DELIBERATELY.

One would think that after almost two years in office, the president his staff would not make gaffes like this. These are the sort of things made during the first months, when everyone is still in transition mode.

Now it appears we have Daffy Duck as president, Elmer Fudd as vice president, and Huey, Louey, and Dewy as advisors.

The Lefties assume everyone is like them in hoping people they don't like will fail

Assuming Rush Limbaugh is no Lefty, I must conclude that the Righties assume everyone is like them -- including the Lefties -- in hoping people they don't like will fail:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPTRUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this.... but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

... So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

FLS, why, in quoting edutcher's comment, did you cut off the part where he talks about what Rush said

"As Rush put it, most people wanted his agenda, once it became known after the election, to fail because they could see what it would do to the country, but they wanted the country to succeed. If he had proposed some sensible ideas and listened to all opinions offered, he wouldn't be in the low 40s in the polls."

and then go on to make your own comparison to what Rush said, as if edutcher hadn't already addressed it?

there aren't enough Muslims living in lower Manhattan to fill a Winnebago, much less a massive, multi-story mosque. So, where exactly will the Muslim throngs be coming from?.

Muslims have to pray three times when they are likely to be away from home: at noon, and sunset, and halfway between. They prefer to pray in community.

The late Mayor Richard J. Daley went to Mass every morning -- not in his parish church, but downtown, near where he worked, in St. Peter's church on Madison Street. Was daily Mass required by his religion? No. Were there enough Catholics living in the Loop to fill a Winnebago? Not in the 60s and 70s.

tradguy - "The alternative would be a total Israeli victory (over Iran) without the USA's help. That would make Israel the Hegemon over the middle east, not the Obama Gang. Hmmm. Now the US military in Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan will be in place to thwart Israel's victory and save Iran while we merrily presume we are Israel's friend."

1. Israel cannot have a total victory over Iran w/o using several nuclear weapons. They do, starting a one-sided nuke war, their moral capital, whatever remains, would be gone. Even here in the USA save the Jewish Zionists and their puppets the Christian Zionists. Then it would be just wondering if an oil embargo finishes them or the Paks or Chinese hand Iran some payback nukes, saying "enjoy!!".

2. Israel cannot be the Hegemon of the ME. Not with Turkey there, Egypt, or the Keeper of the Two Holy Places.

3. Israel is not our "friend", nor are we really theirs. Our closest and longest term allies are the Canadians, Dutch, UK, Australians, and French. But ultimately, nations don't have friends, they have interests. Right now the logic appears to be that we "owe" the Jews, as do Palestinian villagers...for what the National Socialists did...which was in part due to the Jewish role in the tens of millions killed in the Red Terror.

@ Deborah...I try not to fall for a head fake by a basketball player who when he plans to drive left, looks right. The current belt buckle to watch are warnings to shoot down the Israeli aircraft if they cross Iraq. If not then Barack can wait for a point of exhaustion of Israeli ammo supplies in defending Iran's ensuing land attack from Gaza, Lebanan, and Syria. At that point he calls for saving everyone provided that he is put in charge of the peace. The alternative would be a total Israeli victory without the USA's help. That would make Israel the Hegemon over the middle east, not the Obama Gang. Hmmm. Now the US military in Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan will be in place to thwart Israel's victory and save Iran while we merrily presume we are Israel's friend. Barack is only a friend of an Israeli Government ready to surrender its sovereignty...like issuing building permits in historic Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

Tradguy, I'm having a little trouble following you. I with you up to Obama shooting down planes and waiting till they run out of munitions...sneaky. But the part where Israel wins by itself, I can't see happening unless, you know, they nuke them. And even if they win by themselves, how would that make them the hegemon? They're teeny, they have no oil, and everyone hates them.

Will you please clarify what you mean by:Now the US military in Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan will be in place to thwart Israel's victory and save Iran while we merrily presume we are Israel's friend. Thanks.

I stop reading comments once I read the first transparent bit of bullshit.

It sounds more like you stopped reading as soon as you come across an idea that challenged your worldview, and begin furiously writing a rebuttal without any regard for the further development of that idea within the original comment.

I'm not surprised you're a close-minded knee-jerk reactionary, although I am slightly surprised to see you so openly admit it.

Deborah...Israel will find a wise way to use its military technology and survive. They have an Air Force and a real threat of Jewish nukes to back up their existence. Israel has potential allies in France and Germany who need its presence if Obama turns his back upon US leadership in the area. Jimmy Carter and his sock puppet Zbig Brzezinski now want the US to threaten a retaliation on Israel if Netanyahu uses his nukes. Something has got to give soon.

"Politically, his approval ratings are better than Clinton's and Reagan's were at this point in their presidencies. For the time being, I'll let that stand as a testament to the ability of the American people to be reasonable, forgiving and assign blame where it actually lays."

"which was in part due to the Jewish role in the tens of millions killed in the Red Terror."

Hey, at least C-fudd isn't a Holocaust denier! Never mind the fact that Hitler's antisemitism predates the Russian Revolution, let alone the millions killed by the antisemitic Stalin. Bad day at the glory hole, Fudd?

The late Mayor Richard J. Daley went to Mass every morning -- not in his parish church, but downtown, near where he worked, in St. Peter's church on Madison Street. Was daily Mass required by his religion? No. Were there enough Catholics living in the Loop to fill a Winnebago? Not in the 60s and 70s.

Did Catholics blow up the Sears Tower and then try to build a church next door?

"If we don't let Jihadis build a victory monument at Ground Zero the terrorists will have won."That seems to be the message from the Liberal/Left/Progressive end of the political spectrum and amplified by Barack Hussein Obama. And make no mistake about it; there's no way that anyone believes that Cordoba House is not a victory monument. No one - literally no one - is that stupid,

To really rub our faces in it, the Government is paying Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the mosque, to take a junket at our expense to the Arab world where he will raise the funds to build the monument to Islam's greatest victory of this century over the "Great Satan."

Lenin famously said that The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" He was understating his case. The Ruling Class in America won't sell the Jihads the rope; they'll provide it free while congratulating themselves on their generosity.

Not that Alpha Liberals would have a problem with having a mosque established directly dead center over the site where islamist religious fanatics sneak-attack-murdered thousands of innocent Americans.

Because, for, Alpha Liberals, the right to build a mosque anywhere at all trumps even common decency.

Meade, that's right. The freedom of religion guaranteed in our Constitution cannot be suspended because of hurt feelings from people who hate Muslims (or Jews or Catholics, etc).

And, the view you espouse: that all of Islam is at war with the west, is the same as Osama bin Laden's. He would love to show us suppressing Islamic religious freedom!

I will agree with Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, as far as this excerpt goes,

An inclusive rhetoric toward Islam is sometimes dismissed as mere political correctness. Having spent some time crafting such rhetoric for a president, I can attest that it is actually a matter of national interest. It is appropriate -- in my view, required -- for a president to draw a clear line between "us" and "them" in the global conflict with Muslim militants. I wish Obama would do it with more vigor. But it matters greatly where that line is drawn. The militants hope, above all else, to provoke conflict between the West and Islam -- to graft their totalitarian political manias onto a broader movement of Muslim solidarity. America hopes to draw a line that isolates the politically violent and those who tolerate political violence -- creating solidarity with Muslim opponents and victims of radicalism.

How precisely is our cause served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave? It assumes a civilizational conflict instead of defusing it. Symbolism is indeed important in the war against terrorism. But a mosque that rejects radicalism is not a symbol of the enemy's victory; it is a prerequisite for our own.

While it's been clear from the beginning that the President would not lower himself by passing judgment on every local subject, maybe he could at least have a beer summit or something to help resolve this...

The First Amendment denies anyone the authority to stop a Mosque being built anywhere.

You've got a different Constitution than everyone else does, then.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does your version have a little addendum at the end that includes your "and no one has any authority to stop a Mosque being built anywhere" clause?

AC245, all public powers in the USA originate in the Constitution. That includes zoning authority! Local governments do not, by any means, enjoy greater powers than Congress and certainly not the ability to repress religious freedom, as you claim.

Really, it falls on you (and Ann Althouse) to back up your claim that the local government has the authority to prohibit the construction of a house of worship.

Look at that. Another Republican speaks out against suspending the First Amendment. Mike McKinnon on Morning Joe:

""Usually Republicans are forthright in defending the Constitution. And here we are, reinforcing al Qaeda's message that we're at war with Muslims.... I see a bad pattern where we're headed as a Republican Party.""

Really, it falls on you (and Ann Althouse) to back up your claim that the local government has the authority to prohibit the construction of a house of worship.

First, neither Althouse nor I have made that claim.

Second, I have neither the time nor the inclination to remedy your apparently vast ignorance on the structure and workings of the various levels of government in the U.S.

And third, thanks for providing some laughs. You're hilarious when you run out of talking points and have to go off script and try to argue things on your own.

Your "The First Amendment denies anyone the authority to stop a Mosque being built anywhere." claim was funny, and when I read your follow-up "Erecting a house of worship is as much an "establishment of religion" as can be found.", I laughed so hard my drink came out my nose.

Relax Alpha,It's the "dialogue" between those in favor and those against...i.e freedom of expression. If teh imam wants to start a "dialogue", perhaps he should be in THIS country getting his mug and wisdom on the tube and doing so.

He might dialogue with other muslims who are against it:

n a letter to Imam Faisal Rauf that will be delivered on Tuesday, August 10 by MCC’s board member Raheel Raza, the MCC says, “Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

“The Qur'an commands us Muslims to, 'be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book' -- i.e., Jews and Christians [chapter 29, verse 46]. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers, is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of fitna,” the letter added.

Another concern which I'm not sure how to corroborate, is that a Christian church destroyed by the errr..incident,has encountered significant red tape and delays in its efforts to rebuild. Some say the mosque is being "fast tracked". Maybe all the religions could join together in a spirit of "dialogue" and open a single building offering a virtual buffet of faiths..a faith court, if you will. It would be a shrine to tolerance and consumer choice. Maybe a few of those coin-op massage chairs to keep the stress levels minimal.

AL - I'm a little confused. The Constitution has two clauses regarding religion. The first is the "establishment clause", which I alway thought prevented Congress from establishing a national church, like the Church of England. The second is the "free exercise clause", which I understand to mean that Congress can't pass laws restricting reasonable religious practices (as opposed to laws prohibiting animal or human sacrifice, for example). Now, given that there are more than 2 dozen mosques in NYC, even if there was a move in Congress to not allow this particular mosque in this particular location (which there isn't), how would it be interfering with the right for Moslems to freely exercise their religion? It would only make sense if that particular site was one of some religious significance, like the Temple Mount or Mecca. Is anybody making that case?

I understand that the establishment clause is about, in part, creating a "national religion."

Like, and necessarily, it is also about not favoring one religion over another. Which involves not disfavoring one religion.

The right wing seeks to favor Christianity and Judaism over Islam. They seek to disfavor Islam and circumscribe geographic areas where Muslims may worship and by restricting the ability of Muslims to build houses of worship.

It is a highly dishonest claim that the US Constitution grants anyone in government the power to stop any religious building from being legally constructed.

But, hey, there is a law professor in the house. By all means, Ann Althouse, please lay out the Constitutional foundation you perceive for prohibiting a house of worship from being built.

Now, given that there are more than 2 dozen mosques in NYC, even if there was a move in Congress to not allow this particular mosque in this particular location (which there isn't), how would it be interfering with the right for Moslems to freely exercise their religion?

Why do Baptists need to build a church in a town with plenty of Catholic churches?

Neither question is appropriate in a country that wants to claim we have freedom of religion.

Given Islam's oppresion of women, homosexuals, and religious minorities, I'm not sure why the "left wing" finds this objectionable. It's enough to make me think that this is less about religious freedom and more about sticking a finger in the eye of all those mouth-breathing, inbreds that gave us 8 years of Bush. It's funny really. In the wake of 9/11 I remember some prominent liberals bemoaning that the 9/11 attackers targeted liberal NYC as opposed to one of those racist, red states. Now apparently, NYC is the new Texas. Can "blue laws" and concealed carry be far behind?

Alpha,Let me be more direct. What do YOU think of the wisdom of building there? Do you feel that the imam's pursuit and apparent lack of "outreach" to the public at this point is a helpful way to go about his supposed goals of dialogue and outreach? I know..he's busy working for the government and raising money for the effort. But..I'm sure a sattelite feed could be arranged...once found:http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/seriously-where-is-imam-feisal-and-whats-with-his-web-site/

Will you join me in the pursuit of a faith court? I promise there will be room for a Cinnabon. Yummy!

"Neither question is appropriate in a country that wants to claim we have freedom of religion."

This isn't about "freedom of religion", the phrase isn't in the Constitution, it's about "free exercise". Again, how is not being able to build this particular mosque in this particular spot, interfering with Moslems abilty to freely exercise their religion in NYC? Does the spot have some sort of particular significance to Islam that would make building a similarly ostentatious (15 stories?) mosque 10 blocks or so down the road inadequate?

So, you're in favor of oppressing women, homosexuals, and religious minorities, as long as it's down in the name of religion? That's not something I would typically associate with a liberal POV, but then what do I know?

"Organized Christianity is, also, guilty of all the sins you list."

Really? What's the modern Christian equivalent to Saudi Arabia or Iran?

"So, do you want to start prohibiting churches from being built?"

Who's for prohibiting churches from being built? I'm against building this one particular mosque in this one particular location. I'd also be against a Church of Christian Identity going up next to the Holocaust Museum or an annex of Fred Phelp's "church" going up next to the Stonewall Inn or Arlington National Cemetery. Would you be as vociferous in your support of their religious freedom as you are with the GZ mosque? Somehow I doubt it.

Bullshit. Prove it.

Prove that I remember it or prove that it happened? If the former, you'll just have to take my word, if the latter, the likliehood of me searching the internet for 10 year old information in the vague hope of proving something to your satisfaction approaches nil.

"So, you're in favor of oppressing women, homosexuals, and religious minorities, as long as it's down in the name of religion?"

I said nothing of the sort. And I doubt you are dumb as you are pretending to be. But, maybe you are, really, that stupid. Or maybe you're just new to the English language or just have poor reading comprehension?

Freedom of religion is an absolute. It is not suspended because of a given religion's history.

As far as your lie about liberals, there are plenty of links to stories and commentaries from ten years ago. You charge that liberals wanted Muslims to attack red states. That's bullshit and a lie.

You can't back it up, but you still, dishonestly, leave it out there.

To walter, it's none of my business - or yours. I have no problem with the decision to build a mosque in the site of a former Burlington Coat Factory and two blocks from Ground Zero. In this spirit, I honor the very American principle of freedom of religion.

Conservatives, OTOH, do not actually believe in the American value of freedom of religion. On this score they could not be clearer.

Walter, your point did not make any sense to me. It lacks coherence. Most religions I've encountered, or participated in, seek to reach out, proselytize, or convert. That is no basis for suspending freedom of religion for any of them.

Alpha seems to be having a bit of a meltdown here. Is this typical for him?

He doesn't dispute Islam's problems with women, and sexual & religious minorities, he only accuses Christians of doing the same thing. So Alpha, what's the modern Christian equivalent to Iran's stoning of adulterous wives? What's the modern Christian equivalent to Saudi Arabia's religious police? Where in Christendom are Moslems prohibited from visting, as "infidels" are prohibited from visiting Mecca? Who's being dishonest here?

He also keeps talking about religious freedom even though the term isn't present in the Constitution. I ask him how denying this particular group of Moslems the right to build this particular mosque in this particular location interferes with Moslems ability to freely exercise (which is in the Constitution) their religions, and all I get is the internet equivalent of chest chumping and arm waving. Again, who's being dishonest here?

Why is this the hill liberals have chosen to die on? Is there something religiously significant about building this particular mosque on this particular sight that makes no other sight suitable, even in the face of significant local and national opposition? I ask because I'm not all that familiar with Islam. I know that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is significant because Jesus is supposed to have been born there, and I know the Wailing Wall is significant because of its relationship to the Jewish Temple, but I'm at a loss to imagine what possible religious significance the 9/11 site could have to Islam.

Oh please Alpha...don't play dumb. I wasn't talking about suspending freedom of religion for the Imam. How many times do you have to read and hear people say that it's about the location?

Legality is not the only issue being discussed.

One more time....Do YOU think that going forward with the project in this location will be a positive for the Imam's proclaimed objectives of outreach and dialogue? And don't you think he should be making an attempt at discussing this with the people of NYC and the nation? Especially since he appears to be employed by us as a sort of ambassador.

If he wants to reach out and dialogue, this is his moment. But where is he? No..hiding behind the constitution is not adequate here if he wants healing.

OK, I did revisit Ann's previous blog post where she says the government cannot block the building of the mosque - but she believes the mosque near 9/11 is offensive.

So, I will no longer call for her to explain legally how the government can prohibit the building of the mosque. (I do believe a lot of conservatives want the government to stop the building of this, and other, mosques.)

It's a bit of a fine difference.

The idea that a mosque near Ground Zero is somehow offensive, however, is bizarre. al Qaeda does not speak for all, or most, of Islam. Period.

If you take offense to a mosque being built there, you are blaming all Muslims for 9/11. Otherwise, there is no connection.

Rob Smith, I answered your previous questions but you have moved deep into the absurd. There is no point to it.

so, stonings occur elsewhere in the world. That means we can stop exercise of freedom of religion here?

Rob Smith: "He also keeps talking about religious freedom even though the term isn't present in the Constitution"

Freedom of religion is a core American value. to your other blather that is why liberals will not stand for such freedom being denied, whether through government action or the shriek of the conservative mobs.

This whole mosque hysteria is also stupid as it plays right into bin Laden's hands. He says that the West is against Islam and that is why Islam should be against the West. You are playing right into his hands.

I notice that some people don't object to a mosque per se. They only object to it being built on "hallowed ground"--two blocks from ground zero.

That raises a thorny technical question for NY governor David Paterson, who has offered to find another site for the Cordoba House Mosque. How far away from ground zero would his alternative site have to be before it's no longer offensive by the hallowed ground standard? If his alternate site task force found a suitable location 10 blocks away, would that be sufficient? 20 blocks? 200 blocks?

Is the upper west side outside hallowed ground? Harlem? Columbia University (which probably has a mosque already)? Does hallowed ground cover all Manhattan? What if Paterson's alternative site was on the west bank of the Hudson but still within visual range?

I notice that some people don't object to a mosque per se. They only object to it being built on "hallowed ground"--two blocks from ground zero.

That raises a thorny technical question for NY governor David Paterson, who has offered to find another site for the Cordoba House Mosque. How far away from ground zero would his alternative site have to be before it's no longer offensive by the hallowed ground standard? If his alternate site task force found a suitable location 10 blocks away, would that be sufficient? 20 blocks? 200 blocks?

Is the upper west side outside hallowed ground? Harlem? Columbia University (which probably has a mosque already)? Does hallowed ground cover all Manhattan? What if Paterson's alternative site was on the west bank of the Hudson but still within visual range?

Wow. Such evasion. Maybe when Gibbs gets the boot, you can take his place. (My apologies if you are Gibbs.) But at least you are beginning to acknowledge the issues are beyond the raw legality. But you clearly will not address the opportunity/responsibility for healing the Imam currently has in this regard.Given his squishy statements on 911 and Hammas in the past, the concern that Quaranic script might frame this construction as a victory over infidels, he could stand to step up to this beckoning plate...IF he wants a healing discourse. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want him to do so.

By the way, if we all felt silenced to discuss the issue, THAT would be succumbing to OBL's desires.

Okay, what does that mean? Apparently to Alpha it means the Moslems have the absolute right to build a mosque anywhere they damn well please no matter what. Now, does anyone think Alpha would be so sanguine about Fred Phelp's right to exercise his religious freedom by building a church next to the Stonewall Inn or on Castro Street, or Operation Rescue's right to exercise their religious freedom by building churches next to abortion clinics? Somehow I doubt his absolute view extends quite that far, but this is not unexpected because the left really doesn't believe in religious freedom, except where they use it as a club to beat those red-necked, hillbillies who gave us 8 years of Bush.

walter, your babble on the discourse is incoherent. I don't know everything the Imam has said and will not speak to it one way or another. I do know he contracted with the Bush State Dept to spread a message of peace and coexistence to Islam abroad. Which sounds fine.

Islam did not attack us on 9/11. We are not at war with Islam. Even George Bush made that point. There is no reason a mosque should cause anyone offense. And being offended by a religion is not reason to stop that religion from building.

Further, the mosque is an effort to accommodate growth of existing Muslim worship, etc, in that very (Ground Zero) area.

I also understand there is a mosque in/near the Pentagon, which was also hit on 9/11. Where is the kerfuffle about that?

Again..not answering the question of how the Imam might better handle and take advantage of this opportune moment by explaining the aims of the project and his prior statements. Worse yet, Alpha's resorting to equating difference of opinion and discussion as the braying of mobs. So much for appreciating freedom of expression.

"I don't know everything the Imam has said and will not speak to it one way or another."

Ah..well that's a really enlightened path to take. And well...if Bush approved of him, nothing more to say.Sorry for babbeling on about so much nonsense. You have proven your superior though. Carry on. If the Imam won't speak, maybe you can be his designated healer. If you yell "Shut up!" loud enough, you will heal the world. Ah..I know..just more "babble".